United States v. State of Texas
Decision Date | 03 September 1972 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 5281. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. The STATE OF TEXAS et al., Defendants. Eddie Mitchell TASBY et al., Intervenors-Petitioners, v. Honorable Dee Brown WALKER, Judge, et al., Respondents. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Joe Rich, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Washington, D. C., Roby Hadden, U. S. Atty., Tyler, Tex., for plaintiff.
J. B. Ochoa, Jr., Edward W. Dunbar, Dallas Legal Services Foundation, Inc. and Edward Cloutman, III, Dallas, Tex., for intervenors.
Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Melvin Corley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for defendants.
Arlen D. Bynum and David C. Musslewhite, Dallas, Tex., for respondents.
JUSTICE, District Judge.
In another installment of United States v. Texas, 321 F.Supp. 1043 (E.D. Tex.1970); 330 F.Supp. 235 (1971); aff'd with modifications, 447 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1971); stay denied, 404 U.S. 1206, 92 S.Ct. 8, 30 L.Ed.2d 10 (Black, J.); cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1016, 92 S.Ct. 675, 30 L.Ed.2d 663 (1972), intervenor-plaintiffs bring this action for a preliminary injunction against further proceedings in the District Court of Dallas County, 162nd Judicial District of the State of Texas, on the ground that a temporary restraining order issued by that state court directly interferes with the judgment of this court. In response to the motion of intervenor-plaintiffs (hereinafter plaintiffs), this court issued a temporary restraining order against further proceedings in the state court on August 31, 1972. The hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction was held on September 2, 1972.
United States v. Texas, supra, initiated by the government in an attempt to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment, directed the Commissioner of Education of the State of Texas (hereinafter Commissioner) and the Texas Education Agency, pursuant to definite procedures, to withhold funds and accreditation from school districts that failed to meet the constitutional requirement to eliminate the vestiges of the dual school system. This court's order concerned student transfers, changes in school district boundaries, school transportation, extracurricular activities, faculty and staff practices, student assignment, and curricula and compensatory education. With minor modifications, the order was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit.
Acting under this order, the Commissioner disapproved the request of 87 white students to transfer from the Dallas Independent School District to the all-white Highland Park Independent School District. The Highland Park superintendent was notified of the Commissioner's decision on July 14, 1972; upon request for a reconsideration, the Commissioner reaffirmed his earlier decision to deny the transfers on August 14, 1972. Two days later, the Highland Park superintendent notified the parents of the students seeking a transfer that their request would be denied.
On August 25, 1972, a group of students and parents who were denied permission to transfer brought suit in state court against the Highland Park District. Apparently proceeding on the theory that the Commissioner's ruling violated a contract between the plaintiffs and Highland Park,1 the state court issued a temporary restraining order that enjoined Highland Park from disapproving the transfers. An amended order issued August 27, 1972, purportedly applied this decision to the named plaintiffs as well as to other students and parents residing in the so-called "Ninth Installment" of the City of Highland Park, Texas. Caught between the ruling of the Commissioner made pursuant to a federal court order and the temporary restraining order of the state court, the Highland Park District followed the state court's decision. Thus the issue is whether this court should enjoin further state court interference with a federal court order to desegregate the schools.
Jurisdiction for intervenor-plaintiffs' present request for relief is based on this court's continuing jurisdiction in United States v. Texas, supra. The statement of jurisdiction reads as follows:
This court retains jurisdiction for all purposes including the entry of any and all further orders which may become necessary for the purpose of enforcing or modifying this Order.
This court's jurisdiction to issue "all further orders which may become necessary for the purpose of enforcing or modifying this Order" is consistent with the power of a federal court to enforce equitable relief. Federal district courts may "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651. Defendants' motion to dismiss the present action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction raises, at least inferentially, two possible barriers to this court's action.
28 U.S.C.A. § 2283.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. State
...2017). Federal courts, in suits brought by the United States, have enjoined state court proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. Texas , 356 F. Supp. 469, 473 (E.D. Tex. 1972), aff'd , 495 F.2d 1250 (5th Cir. 1974) ("Accordingly, it is ... [o]rdered that the District Court of Dallas County,......
-
United States v. State of Washington, Civ. No. 9213—Phase I.
...v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955); Doe v. Ceci, 517 F.2d 1203 (9th Cir. 1975); United States v. Texas, 356 F.Supp. 469 (E.D.Texas 1972); aff'd, 495 F.2d 1250 (5th Cir. 1974); Bullock v. United States, 265 F.2d 683 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 360 U.S. 909,......
-
U.S. v. LULAC
...(E.D.Tex.1971), aff'd, 466 F.2d 518 (5th Cir.1972), vacated in part after remand, 509 F.2d 192 (5th Cir.1973); United States v. State of Texas, 356 F.Supp. 469 (E.D.Tex.1972), aff'd, 495 F.2d 1250 (5th Cir.1974); United States v. State of Texas, 506 F.Supp. 405 (E.D.Tex.1981), and United St......
-
United States v. State of Mich.
...to carry out earlier federal court integration order. Accord, Grenchik v. Mandel, 373 F.Supp. 1298 (D.Md.1973); United States v. Texas, 356 F.Supp. 469 (E.D.Tex.1972). In Montgomery County Board of Education v. Shelton, 327 F.Supp. 811 (N.D.Miss.1971) a federal court, having limited protest......